I’m not a lawyer. To me, a Notice to Explain isn’t just legal paperwork—it’s a chance to build trust and strengthen culture. Too often, HR sees it as a power move, a weapon. That’s the mistake.
Imagine this: a company suddenly fires an employee for missing a deadline, no questions asked. They didn’t bother to ask what happened. No explanation. No chance to clarify.
What’s the result? Chaos.
Resentment brews. Morale drops. Other employees start to feel uneasy, constantly worrying they might be next. Trust? Gone.
When companies make decisions without giving employees a chance to explain, it’s like punishing someone without hearing their side of the story. It creates a toxic environment where mistakes are feared, not learned from. People become less motivated and less loyal because they know their voices aren’t heard.
A notice to explain isn’t just a formality. It’s the company’s way of saying, “We value your input before we make any moves.” It’s about fairness, clarity, and giving people the chance to tell their side of the story. Without it, companies risk losing more than just one employee—they lose the trust of their entire team.
What is a Notice to Explain?
Imagine you missed a deadline or an important meeting. Your boss sends you an email, not just any email—a notice to explain. It’s like the workplace version of a “what happened?” message. But it’s official. The company wants to know why something went wrong. And they want your side of the story.
A notice to explain (NTE) isn’t a punishment. It’s a way for the company to understand why a rule was broken or why something didn’t go as planned before taking any further steps. It’s about giving you a chance to explain before any decisions are made.
Why does it matter?
Think of it as a fairness tool. The company wants to ensure that before they jump to conclusions, they’ve heard from you. Maybe you missed a deadline because of a system crash, or maybe you had an emergency. The NTE allows you to present your reasons, so you don’t get unfairly blamed.
In a workplace scenario, fairness is key. If companies acted without hearing both sides, trust would break. When used right, a notice to explain ensures accountability without creating resentment. It helps both sides get clarity and can even improve work relationships when misunderstandings are cleared up.
How to write a Notice to Explain?
- Keep it simple
Stick to the facts. Avoid any emotional language. Imagine writing to a co-worker you respect. - State the incident clearly
What happened, where, and when? Be precise. - Ask for their side of the story
Remember, you’re giving them a chance to explain. Use language that’s clear but not overly formal. - Set a deadline for response
Give them a specific time to reply. This shows you’re serious, but also fair.
Here’s how it looks in a real-world scenario:
Subject: Notice to Explain: Missed Deadline for Project Alpha
Hi [Employee Name],
I hope you’re well. We noticed that the deadline for Project Alpha was missed on [date]. As this project is important to our client, we would like to understand the reason for the delay.
Could you please provide an explanation by [insert date]?
We value your input and want to ensure that we’re fully aware of all factors before moving forward.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Best,
[Your Name]
Manager
Why is it written like this?
It’s clear, factual, and respectful. No blaming. No accusing. Just asking for an explanation. This style gives the employee the space to tell their side, without feeling attacked.
Real-life scenario:
Let’s say, you’re a supervisor, and your team member, Sam, missed an important deadline for a project. Instead of confronting him in front of others, you send a notice to explain.
This opens the conversation without putting Sam on the defensive. Maybe Sam’s workload was too much, or maybe something personal came up. Now, Sam has a chance to tell you.
Read: How to Answer a Notice to Explain
Philippine Laws
In the Philippines, several labor laws and regulations emphasize the importance of a Notice to Explain (NTE) before disciplinary actions are taken, particularly in cases of termination or serious sanctions.
The two key legal foundations for this requirement are The Labor Code of the Philippines and the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
1. Article 297 of the Labor Code (formerly Article 282)
This article outlines the just causes for termination, which include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, and gross negligence, among others. However, before any dismissal based on just cause, due process must be followed. This is where the notice to explain comes in.
- The text says:“The employer shall furnish the employee a written notice containing a statement of the cause for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations.”
The phrase “ample opportunity to be heard” refers to the right of the employee to provide an explanation, often initiated through a Notice to Explain.
2. Department Order No. 147-15 (Series of 2015)
This order from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) clarifies the due process requirements in the termination of employment. It explicitly outlines the two-notice rule: the Notice to Explain (NTE) and the Notice of Decision.
- The text says:“In cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:(1) For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 297 of the Labor Code: (i) A first written notice served on the employee specifying the grounds for termination and giving said employee a reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side…”
In essence, the employer must issue a Notice to Explain before imposing any disciplinary action, particularly termination. The employee must be given sufficient time to present their side of the story.
3. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (Book V, Rule XIV, Section 2)
This section outlines the procedure for terminating an employee based on just cause. It emphasizes the need for two notices:
- The text says:“The employer shall furnish the employee with a written notice stating the particular acts or omissions constituting the grounds for his dismissal, and give him the opportunity to explain his side…”
Again, this reinforces the need for a formal Notice to Explain before any decision regarding termination is made.
Why these laws matter:
These laws ensure that before any serious action, like termination, the employer respects the employee’s right to due process.
Without following the two-notice rule (NTE + Notice of Decision), an employer could face labor disputes or claims of illegal dismissal.
The Notice to Explain is a safeguard that protects employees from unfair treatment, and it ensures that employers act with transparency and fairness.
When NTE Becomes a Source of Fear
In some organizations, the Notice to Explain (NTE) has become a source of fear and anxiety for employees. They dread receiving one, and supervisors sometimes misuse it as a threat, a way to “force” compliance. But this is a sign of deeper issues in company culture, where the NTE is no longer about clarity and fairness—it’s become a tool of control. This is dangerous, and here’s why.
What’s wrong with using the NTE as a threat?
It undermines trust.
When supervisors use the NTE to scare employees into submission, it destroys the foundation of trust. Instead of being a tool for constructive communication, it becomes a weapon. Employees start to feel that mistakes aren’t opportunities to learn but something to fear. This leads to a toxic work environment, where people are more concerned about avoiding blame than improving performance.
It breeds resentment.
If employees are constantly threatened with an NTE, they begin to resent their supervisors and the company. This resentment doesn’t just impact the individual—it spreads, affecting team morale. When people are working out of fear, they’re not performing at their best. They’re just trying to avoid punishment.
It creates a culture of compliance, not commitment.
When NTEs are used as a threat, employees are not motivated to do their best work—they’re motivated to do the bare minimum to avoid getting into trouble. Innovation, creativity, and engagement suffer because people are afraid to take risks. They play it safe, even when playing it safe isn’t the best strategy.
It damages long-term loyalty.
If employees feel like they’re constantly walking on eggshells, they’re likely to start looking for other jobs. High turnover costs the company more in the long run, and it creates a revolving door of employees who never fully invest in the company’s success.
How to fix it:
Reframe the purpose of the NTE.
Start by changing the narrative around the NTE. It’s not a punishment—it’s an opportunity for dialogue. Educate supervisors and employees on the real purpose of a Notice to Explain: to clarify facts and understand what went wrong.
Let employees know that receiving an NTE doesn’t mean they’re in immediate trouble; it just means the company wants to understand their side of the story.
Example: Imagine if, instead of threatening employees, a supervisor said, “Let’s get to the bottom of this together. I’ll send you an NTE, but it’s just so we can document everything and understand what happened. No pressure—let’s work through it.” The tone changes everything.
Train supervisors on proper communication.
Supervisors need to understand that threatening an NTE as a form of control is counterproductive. They should be trained to approach issues with empathy and respect. Use NTEs only when necessary and ensure that they’re delivered in a tone that seeks understanding, not punishment.
Example: Instead of saying, “If you don’t meet this deadline, you’ll get an NTE,” a better approach would be, “I see you’re having trouble meeting this deadline. Is there something I can do to help? Let’s talk about it before we get to the point of needing formal action.”
Shift the focus to improvement, not blame.
Create a culture where mistakes are seen as learning opportunities. When employees understand that the goal is improvement and growth, the NTE becomes less of a threat and more of a step toward solving problems. Encourage open dialogue where employees feel comfortable explaining their side without fear of retaliation.
Example: After an NTE is issued and the explanation is received, have a follow-up conversation. Ask questions like, “How can we prevent this from happening again?” or “What support do you need moving forward?” This signals that the company is focused on solutions, not punishment.
Foster a culture of psychological safety.
Employees should feel safe to admit mistakes and talk openly about challenges without the constant fear of receiving an NTE. Encourage feedback and communication between employees and supervisors. If something went wrong, have informal conversations first before resorting to formal notices.
Example: Instead of jumping straight to an NTE, a supervisor might say, “Hey, I noticed that you missed the deadline. Let’s talk about why it happened and how we can work through it.” Then, only if necessary, escalate it to a formal NTE.
Use NTEs sparingly and consistently.
Not every mistake needs to lead to a formal notice. Reserve NTEs for situations where a clear violation of company policy has occurred, and always use them consistently. If one person gets an NTE for being late, while others are let off with a warning, the NTE loses its purpose and fairness.
Example: If an employee is late once due to personal reasons, an informal conversation might be enough. But if tardiness becomes a repeated issue, then an NTE would be appropriate. The key is consistency across the board.
When used correctly, a Notice to Explain is a tool for clarity and accountability, not fear. By changing how it’s perceived and how supervisors handle it, organizations can transform the NTE from a dreaded document into a stepping stone for learning and growth.
I regularly conduct training the country sides. Often, I hear stories of how “power-tripping” bosses uses the NTE to force employees to comply. And when I asked managers why it is done, I often get answers like “joke only” or “for them to be afraid”.
They don’t know the impact of these. Making people feel afraid of NTE is a symptom of more problems.
Patrick Lencioni’s work, particularly in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, offers a powerful lens through which we can view the Notice to Explain (NTE) process.
Lencioni emphasizes the importance of trust, accountability, and conflict resolution in teams, which aligns closely with how the NTE should ideally be used in the workplace.
Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions and the NTE Process
Absence of Trust
At the base of Lencioni’s pyramid of dysfunctions is trust—the foundation for any successful team. When employees receive an NTE and feel fearful or threatened, it’s often a sign that trust is lacking.
If a supervisor issues an NTE without prior conversations or if it’s wielded as a threat, it erodes trust.Lencioni argues that vulnerability-based trust is essential.
In a healthy work environment, employees feel comfortable admitting mistakes or discussing challenges. The misuse of NTEs turns mistakes into hidden issues, where people cover up problems instead of addressing them openly.
Key takeaway: Supervisors should build trust by using the NTE not as a threat but as a step in an ongoing conversation. By fostering open dialogue and transparency, teams are more likely to collaborate in resolving issues without fear of punishment.
Fear of Conflict
In Lencioni’s model, teams that lack trust also tend to avoid constructive conflict. This fear of conflict can manifest in workplaces where the NTE is seen as an immediate sign of trouble.
When employees believe that bringing up problems will lead to a formal reprimand, they stop engaging in meaningful dialogue.
The NTE, when used correctly, should encourage healthy conflict resolution—allowing employees to explain their side and be part of finding a solution, not avoiding conflict at all costs.
Key takeaway: The NTE should create space for employees to explain and discuss issues constructively. When done right, it becomes part of a dialogue that resolves conflict, not suppresses it.
Lack of Commitment
Lencioni talks about how teams fail to fully commit when there is ambiguity or a lack of clarity in decision-making. This connects to the clarity that an NTE brings.
If employees are unclear about expectations or what led to the NTE, it damages their ability to commit to future tasks.
Supervisors should use the NTE to clearly define what went wrong and give employees the opportunity to respond. By doing so, the team can align on expectations moving forward, ensuring that everyone is committed to the same goals.
Key takeaway: The NTE should clarify misunderstandings, realign goals, and help teams commit to improved performance.
Avoidance of Accountability
A major part of Lencioni’s model is the need for accountability. Teams fall apart when members are not held accountable for their actions. The NTE process is directly connected to this dysfunction.
When done properly, the NTE holds individuals accountable for their actions in a fair and transparent way. It doesn’t punish but asks, “What happened, and how can we fix it?”If an NTE is used inconsistently or as a scare tactic, it diminishes its role in accountability.
Employees need to see it as part of a fair process, not something to be feared, for it to be effective in maintaining accountability within the team.
Key takeaway: NTEs should be used consistently and fairly, with the goal of holding employees accountable in a constructive way that encourages improvement.
Inattention to Results
Lencioni points out that dysfunctional teams focus more on individual agendas than collective results. A poorly handled NTE can exacerbate this, with employees focusing on defending themselves rather than improving their work or contributing to team goals.
A properly issued NTE should refocus attention on results—asking not only how to resolve the current issue but how to ensure the team performs better as a whole moving forward.
Key takeaway: NTEs should be used to refocus employees and teams on the collective results and objectives, ensuring that the individual’s explanation helps the team move forward.
Applying Lencioni’s Principles to Fix NTE Misuse
If we look at Lencioni’s insights, the proper use of an NTE should strengthen team dynamics, not weaken them. Here’s how:
- Build Trust: Use the NTE as an opportunity for open, vulnerable conversations. Make it clear that the NTE isn’t about punishment, but understanding and learning from the situation.
- Encourage Healthy Conflict: Allow the NTE to open up necessary discussions about mistakes and issues without fear. Employees should feel that explaining themselves is part of the process of improvement, not an invitation for punishment.
- Gain Commitment: Clarify expectations and outcomes through the NTE, ensuring that everyone involved is aligned and committed to moving forward with a better understanding.
- Drive Accountability: Use the NTE to ensure that individuals take responsibility for their actions while being supported in their growth and improvement.
- Focus on Results: The end goal of the NTE should always be improvement in team and individual performance, redirecting focus toward achieving the team’s objectives.
Patrick Lencioni’s model of team dysfunctions provides a clear framework for why the Notice to Explain should be seen as a tool for improving team dynamics, not just disciplining individuals. It should be used to build trust, encourage healthy conflict, and foster accountability—ultimately helping the team focus on achieving results, rather than fearing punishment.
